Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iloveangels said:
YES. YOU HAVE. Expanding marriage on your pretext includes all other expansions by definition.
Click to expand...
Nope - you believe that allowing SSM opens to the door to other marriages, but I haven’t argued for or against that conclusion.
 
bri89 said:
It’s only detrimental to the procreative potential of the homosexuals themselves, and not the procreative potential of the heterosexual majority.
Click to expand...
Not true. It affects us all statistically.
bri89 said:
There are religious and moral matters involved, but I was responding to your appeal to biology.
Click to expand...
Correct, there are very serious religious and moral matters involved.
 
spencelo said:
Specifically, here we are determining whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry – nothing to do with incest.
Click to expand...
It’s hypocritical for you to criticize us for limiting the definition of marriage when you are placing your own limits on it.
 
spencelo said:
Sorry, that is your claim, not mine.
Click to expand...
It is my claim that you have not refuted.
spencelo said:
just don’t want to waste time defining concepts that are well-understood by everyone in this debate (even those who pretend not to understand them).
Click to expand...
We do not know YOUR definition of marriage?

Can you provide an ancient reasoned definition of marriage which will include opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples but exclude pedophile couples? Remembering of course that laws and taboos can be changed.
 
spencelo said:
Except I haven’t limited anything – except the scope of the discussion, which is about SSM. I haven’t argued one way or another about whether marriage should be expanded in other ways.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, you’d never try to “expand” it in another way when by its very definition it can’t be expanded…just for two homos, which marriage by right, God, morality, history, and common sense, tells everyone it was never intended for.

We have given you reason after reason. You just don’t get it and refuse to answer questions posited to you. Behind your litany and rhetoric, you want it approved solely because you want it approved. That’s about it. You want approval and acceptance that it is right. It’s not, and it won’t be.
 
spencelo said:
Nope - you believe that allowing SSM opens to the door to other marriages, but I haven’t argued for or against that conclusion.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of the kind of self-absorbed and immature psychology that lends itself to the homosexual viewpoint. You believe that you should have it for your own reasons. Do you not realize that this is the same argument a man who wants to marry his own mother or sister would make?

You made the argument of possibility earlier. Yet, the man who wants to marry his own mother could make that argument too.
 
bri89 said:
Do you think anything that exists outside the norm is necessarily invalid and a defect? Is being double-jointed a defect, being a twin, being left-handed, are these all moral failures to be derided or mourned over. Why can’t we accept that anomalies exist and normality/ conventionality is not morality. Being hostile to non-norms says more about you than anything.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of marriage?
 
spencelo said:
Except I haven’t limited anything – except the scope of the discussion, which is about SSM. I haven’t argued one way or another about whether marriage should be expanded in other ways.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t work that way. You can’t say you want to discuss something and then make a rule saying that nothing that you can’t explain can be discussed.
 
jenwha said:
Oh, no, you’d never try to “expand” it in another way when by its very definition it can’t be expanded…just for two homos, which marriage by right, God, morality, history, and common sense, tells everyone it was never intended for.

We have given you reason after reason. You just don’t get it and refuse to answer questions posited to you. Behind your litany and rhetoric, you want it approved solely because you want it approved. That’s about it. You want approval and acceptance that it is right. It’s not, and it won’t be.
Click to expand...
Jenwha,
There is a saying among philosophers:

“If logic doesn’t suffice, I don’t know what might.”

I think that this guy just wants to whine. He’s not really interested in anything that makes sense or is logical. He wants what he wants and he’s not listening to reason.
 
Stephen168 said:
It is my claim that you have not refuted.
Click to expand...
There’s no need to refute mere assertions.
Stephen168 said:
We do not know YOUR definition of marriage?
Click to expand...
Google the term “civil marriage.”
Stephen168 said:
Can you provide an ancient reasoned definition of marriage which will include opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples but exclude pedophile couples? Remembering of course that laws and taboos can be changed.
Click to expand...
An “ancient” definition? Probably not, but I don’t see why I need to.
 
spencelo said:
There’s no need to refute mere assertions.

Google the term “civil marriage.”

An “ancient” definition? Probably not, but I don’t see why I need to.
Click to expand...
Spencelo, I think you just want to whine. That’s all. You’re not interested in logic or reason. You just wanna get away with something, like a whiny little kid. Period.
 
iloveangels said:
Not true. It affects us all statistically.

Correct, there are very serious religious and moral matters involved.
Click to expand...
There are billions of people on this planet and homosexuality has always existed, so it seems it has had no detrimental effect upon procreation. I simply can not see it’s destructiveness to the begetting of new life.
 
livingwordunity said:
It doesn’t work that way. You can’t say you want to discuss something and then make a rule saying that nothing that you can’t explain can be discussed.
Click to expand...
I never said I can’t explain why you think I can’t explain (but thanks for putting words into my mouth). Rather, I said the subject of incest is totally irrelevant to the present discussion.
 
bri89 said:
There are billions of people on this planet and homosexuality has always existed, so it seems it has had no detrimental effect upon procreation. I simply can not see it’s destructiveness.
Click to expand...
So have birth defects, murders, suicide and wars.
 
spencelo said:
I never said I can’t explain why you think I can’t explain (but thanks for putting words into my mouth). Rather, I said the subject of incest is totally irrelevant to the present discussion.
Click to expand...
You wanna marry what you wanna marry, period. That’s your reason. We shouldn’t confuse you with facts, right?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
spencelo said:
Last time I will say this: Google the term “civil marriage.”
Click to expand...
There you got it out of your system. Happy now? You can stop saying it now, especially since you have no idea what it means yourself. None.

Your point is that you wanna marry what you wanna marry, the church be darned, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top